The type of science I'm discussing in the OP is far above the lower sciences you're trying to reduce this to. You simply lack the higher cognitive abilities necessary for this level of theoretical physics.
If you can't grasp the OP, I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it. You seem mildly intelligent, but I believe you may be more of a parrot than a lion.
LOL!!! OK...answer this question....name all the different types of Quarks and then explain what the purpose of a Gluon is? AboveAlpha
Why would I Parrot someone else's THEORIES, Parrot? Still not sure if you're grasping the fact that all your nonsense book teachings are THEORIES, and are no more or less valid than my theory from the OP.
The THEORY in my OP is no more or less valid than any THEORY popular science accepts as truth. Sorry to burst you guy's bubble, but atoms and molecules are not Empirical science. They are still just unproven THEORIES.
I am glad you replied because it is at the point that I am breaking out into laughter every time I try to post a reply to V-Boy!! LOL!!!! I am really not angry with him nor am I attempting to get through to him as I can see this would be hopeless. But I AM....having a great deal of FUN reading some of his replies!!! LOL!! AHHhhhhhhh......you gotta have a good laugh sometimes. It eases the soul. AboveAlpha
I'm curious... do you even know what a "theory" is? Because in my experience crackpots and charlatans love to use the word without any real understanding of what it means. They're the only ones I know of who twist the language into silly absurdities such as "any THEORY popular science accepts as truth." Science makes no claim to "truth." It merely provides a way of thinking that allows us to incrementally approach it. Oh? Explain that to these guys: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013...mages-of-molecules-before-and-after-reaction/ It's official. You don't know what "theory" means. There is no such thing as a "proven theory." There are only theories in which we have greater or lesser confidence based on their success at explaining past observations and predicting future ones.
That's not a theory. It explains no facts, solves no problems, makes no predictions, suggests no avenues of investigation. Thanks for confirming that you do not know what "theory" means.
But, I thought it was a theory?...based on solid atoms? Sorry, you really have no idea about what you're posting.
Actually, no. The OP does in fact do none of those things. But a few posts ago you were insisting it was a theory. Since theories and hypotheses are two different things, perhaps you should invest some time becoming clear on the concepts rather than persisting in the demonstration of your incoherence.
No, your OP exposes your ignorance on what IS and IS NOT a theory. Not to mention, you haven't proved any abstract of your claim...all you have done is assert, move the goal post and then attempt to condescend. (tip:...when you're wrong, condescending just makes you look like a moron.)
Your magical ability (or at least your belief in your magical ability) to determine somebody else's emotional state through a web forum only puts as fine a point as possible on the rest of your willful disconnect with reality.
Fancy talk makes you feel better about yourself. It masks other latent, possibly repressed insecurities. - - - Updated - - - I haven't moved any goal posts. I simply assert that any matter which is existent is in fact a solid.
OK, if you can PROVE that, then your OP might have a leg to stand on (but you would have to use the actual definition of solid, not a private definition that you have made up). But you have made no attempt to evidence any of your claims. So, persuant to rule 10, substantiate your claims, or retract them.
